This is the forum for discussion of all cricketing issues and news. Here you will find frank analysis and opinion on subjects ranging from selection policies, favourite cricketers and match post-mortems right through to dressing room and cricket board fiascos.

It would be so disheartening for Gabriel and Roach to toil in the field, working their butts off to bowl 140k plus, to then watch their batsmen fold and throw their wickets away. Braithwaite and Holder are the only ones who regularly put a big value on their wicket.

As a fan I am not all that impressed by watching DM Bravo ooze batting talent and not playing internationals. It isn't like he is on the T20 circuit like his older half-brother is. But as a NZ fan, I have endured it with the Ryder dramas - still a waste of talent, though.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

Not that I have seen anything in his test game to turn around the WI's fortunes, but in ODI cricket at least - Hetmeyer has started with an absolute bang. It appears he much prefers the aggressive option, and that he has a license to do so.

In 2019/20 - Smith and Khawaja will lead the charge. Maybe Warner will be back - maybe he won't be.

This is temporary and rather predictable. Smith was just scoring too many of Australia's runs (with Warner in a clear second) before being banned for this not to have been a savage blow. If NZ lost KW and Taylor - NZC would turn into an utter rabble. If India lost Kohli and Pujara their test team would also. Or Kohli and Sharma from their ODI team would hurt them, but they probably have sufficient talent there to avoid rabble status. England test team without Root and Bairstow would look very lean, even with Buttler.

The lack of talented replacements for Australia is not all that surprising seeing Bancroft was in the team with a test average of 30.92.

And on the bright side, Aaron Finch may score a truck load of runs against India this summer. In tests :-)

There is young Pope developing through the system, seamers are not much of an issue for Australia, and there have been structures put in place to improve the batting (like the Dukes ball in Sheffield, etc). The programmes take time to yield results, but they will.

One thing that is possibly overlooked, is that the last time Australia was weak, they established the Australian Cricket Academy in 1987. So many of the players that took Australia to the top in the 1990's - were graduates. Warne, McGrath, Slater, Hayden, McGill, Bevan, Bracken, Clarke, Gillespie, Ponting, Langer, Martyn, Lee - the rest of the world has copied Australia to a large extent in this regard - not to mention the increase in A tours. So that advantage has been leveled out to some degree. India has of course gone as far to have the MRF Pace Foundation. And in Bumrah - they may have just made a future ATG quick.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."

In 2019/20 - Smith and Khawaja will lead the charge. Maybe Warner will be back - maybe he won't be.

This is temporary and rather predictable. Smith was just scoring too many of Australia's runs (with Warner in a clear second) before being banned for this not to have been a savage blow. If NZ lost KW and Taylor - NZC would turn into an utter rabble. If India lost Kohli and Pujara their test team would also. Or Kohli and Sharma from their ODI team would hurt them, but they probably have sufficient talent there to avoid rabble status. England test team without Root and Bairstow would look very lean, even with Buttler.

The lack of talented replacements for Australia is not all that surprising seeing Bancroft was in the team with a test average of 30.92.

And on the bright side, Aaron Finch may score a truck load of runs against India this summer. In tests :-)

There is young Pope developing through the system, seamers are not much of an issue for Australia, and there have been structures put in place to improve the batting (like the Dukes ball in Sheffield, etc). The programmes take time to yield results, but they will.

One thing that is possibly overlooked, is that the last time Australia was weak, they established the Australian Cricket Academy in 1987. So many of the players that took Australia to the top in the 1990's - were graduates. Warne, McGrath, Slater, Hayden, McGill, Bevan, Bracken, Clarke, Gillespie, Ponting, Langer, Martyn, Lee - the rest of the world has copied Australia to a large extent in this regard - not to mention the increase in A tours. So that advantage has been leveled out to some degree. India has of course gone as far to have the MRF Pace Foundation. And in Bumrah - they may have just made a future ATG quick.

We've been waiting a decade for Australia to bounce back and it hasn't. Things have gotten progressively worse every year.It actually looks like and mirrors the decline of rugby.

Australia had good excuses for being weak in the late 80's. World Series cricket fallout, rebel tours, unprofessionalism...but apart from that the game was in a healthy state at lower levels and a cornerstone of Australian culture.

In 2019/20 - Smith and Khawaja will lead the charge. Maybe Warner will be back - maybe he won't be.

This is temporary and rather predictable. Smith was just scoring too many of Australia's runs (with Warner in a clear second) before being banned for this not to have been a savage blow. If NZ lost KW and Taylor - NZC would turn into an utter rabble. If India lost Kohli and Pujara their test team would also. Or Kohli and Sharma from their ODI team would hurt them, but they probably have sufficient talent there to avoid rabble status. England test team without Root and Bairstow would look very lean, even with Buttler.

The lack of talented replacements for Australia is not all that surprising seeing Bancroft was in the team with a test average of 30.92.

And on the bright side, Aaron Finch may score a truck load of runs against India this summer. In tests :-)

There is young Pope developing through the system, seamers are not much of an issue for Australia, and there have been structures put in place to improve the batting (like the Dukes ball in Sheffield, etc). The programmes take time to yield results, but they will.

One thing that is possibly overlooked, is that the last time Australia was weak, they established the Australian Cricket Academy in 1987. So many of the players that took Australia to the top in the 1990's - were graduates. Warne, McGrath, Slater, Hayden, McGill, Bevan, Bracken, Clarke, Gillespie, Ponting, Langer, Martyn, Lee - the rest of the world has copied Australia to a large extent in this regard - not to mention the increase in A tours. So that advantage has been leveled out to some degree. India has of course gone as far to have the MRF Pace Foundation. And in Bumrah - they may have just made a future ATG quick.

We've been waiting a decade for Australia to bounce back and it hasn't. Things have gotten progressively worse every year.It actually looks like and mirrors the decline of rugby.

Australia had good excuses for being weak in the late 80's. World Series cricket fallout, rebel tours, unprofessionalism...but apart from that the game was in a healthy state at lower levels and a cornerstone of Australian culture.

By 1987/88 Aus were world champs of cricket. The mid 80's was the dire period.

But as I said, and with all respect, by 10 years ago - most nations were copying the Australian cricket academy notion and A tours were under way. The Australian Cricket Academy gave CA a huge jump over everybody else. The ACA made McGrath. In all seriousness. It was identified and replicated by many teams - (and everyone started having A tours - not just AIS ACA touring overseas).

Australia has been at the forefront of performance training of cricketers for a long time. But there are no secrets to success. Australia just needs to find the next way to be in front of the pack. 18 county cricket teams has hurt England for a long time. Aus has always played it smart with 6. The Australian determination to win in cricket games will find a rotary clothesline or eski solution. Aussies may not split atoms, but they like winning cricket games.

As for Australian rugby - that's much more complicated. But when Aus rugby had 2 teams (1991, or essentially 3, 1999) - they won world cups. They had winning teams - intl and domestic and they had a happy fan base. They tried to oversaturate themselves - the fans lost interest in losing teams - and the downward spiral commenced and they lost all their ground to the NRL in Aussie Rugby's home states of Qld and NSW. The interest for rugby in Aus will not ever match NZ's cross status or even white SA's. Rugby in NZ is bigger than religion. Perth and Melbourne for rugby was a silly idea for the ARU - aimed just to compete with NZ and SA when the focus should have been on quality over quantity - that is how they competed with NZ with just 2 teams (Qld, NSW) in the 1980's until 1994 when NZ had many a provincial team (Auck, Well, NH, Cant, Otago, Taranaki, Nrth Auck…). This is analogous as to why England fail to sharpen up domestic to intl cricketers so much imo. 18 counties? That's like SL! Dumb idea. It just makes the jump from domestic to intl too great, and in super rugby's case - not fully appreciate the winning mentality. Does Israel Folau get it from his time at the Storm, Qld (even Broncos) and Aus,or the Tah's and ARFU? Because to be honest - he wasn't all that great as a League player compared to Inglis.

"Your inclination to assume and contradict is typical of Narcissism which is nothing about being pretty like the Narcissus fable."